On a very high level, the two statements "Can't we publish specs as
HTML5 to use and showcase our technology" and "HTML5 will go to REC in
10 years" expose an important conflict.
A solution may be to cut HTML5 into smaller pieces, so that what's
deemed to be really stable can go to REC now (or at least in 2012), and
more advanced stuff can follow as soon as it's ready.
That would also help fend off the "HTML5 isn't done yet" argument in the
mobile apps war and other battlegrounds.
Just a thought. Regards, Martin.
On 2011/08/24 10:21, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 15:07 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 05:15 , Liam R E Quin wrote:
> [...]
>>> Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for
>>> archiving.
>>
>> I strongly agree. I also happen to think that this constitutes a
>> strong endorsement in favour of using HTML5
>
> There are two parts. One is technological and I think can easily be
> addressed. For example, HTML documents could contain a link element with
> rel="conformsto" to point to a specific draft, not for validation
> purposes of course, but for archival purposes.
>
> The second is philosophical. I'm actually 100% OK with using HTML 5 for
> the HTML 5 specification itself. Once HTML 5 is a Rec I'm OK with using
> it for other things too. I'm also OK with using HTML 5 for drafts that
> are moving forward, with the understanding that they have a dependency
> on the HTML 5 Rec. I wouldn't want an *unrelated* spec to be published
> as a Recommendation right now, today, in HTML 5, just as I didn't want
> RDFa to be used in Recs before RDFa was itself a Rec. This is because,
> if we ask other people to wait for Recommendation before they use a
> standard (which is what "Recommendation" means - we now recommend that
> you use this) then we should wait ourselves.
>
> Best,
>
> Liam
>